I am from UK and very concerned about the
explosive situation regarding Iraq. I participate in anti war
demonstrations whenever I can although I don't think these
demonstrations will have much effect on the leaders of the superpower
states. I think their strategy is that anti war protestors will organise
big demonstrations, make a lot of noise etc. and then eventually get tired of
these ineffective demonstrations and shut up. I believe what can be effective is
the unity from all the Arab states and getting their act together,
gather some courage, and order American troops out of their territories
and waters.

It is very obvious from years of American military presence in the
Middle East that it has made the whole region
very unstable. So finally my questions to you ARE - as I am very
curious, that why are these Arab countries have allowed their
territories to be used by the American military for so many years? What
is the American military doing there, role wise? why can't the Arab
countries order the USA troops out of the Gulf? Why does half the planet
receive aid from the USA?

Hassan El-Najjar:

Anti-war demonstrations are noble
and effective. However, you are right in that the US and the UK leaders
may not be influenced by them at this stage. The first benefit of
anti-war demonstrations is bringing peace-loving activists together, not
only nationally but also worldwide. The second major benefit is
education for the vast majority of people around the world, who go to
their work everyday without the chance of thinking about what's going on
in the world. A third benefit is enabling honest journalists to write
and report about these activities. Fourth, demonstrations gather
momentum on their own, and when they become frequent and large enough,
politicians pay attention, at least for election purposes. But the most
important benefit of all is that peace activists affirm to themselves
first and to the world around them that there are still humans out
there, it's not completely a jungle. Finally, demonstrations do not
prevent other activities, like lobbying, supporting peace-oriented
political parties, collecting and sending aid to the war victims, or
even going there as human shields. You shouldn't have second thoughts
about the importance of demonstrations. It's an act of peaceful
resistance to the tyrants and war mongers. The alternative, that is
doing nothing, is terrible. It means that whatever the war hawks want
they do without being checked on by the population. I think that
continuous demonstrations in Europe have helped French, German, and
Belgian leaders to say "No" to war. And I hope that continuous
demonstrations in Britain will help convince Blair follow other European
leaders before it is too late.

With regard to your questions
about the relationship between the United States and the Arab Gulf
states, I answered them in the first five chapters of my book, The
Gulf War: Overreaction & Excessiveness. Therefore, my job here
is to give a very brief summary of these chapters, adding more recent
information, whenever necessary.

The development of European
capitalism passed through three main stages: mercantilism (trade),
colonialism (establishing colonies in the new world), and imperialism
(invading other continents with armies).

Until World War I, the Arab
homeland (North Africa and the Arab Middle East) was part of the Ottoman
Empire. The European powers (Britain, France, Italy, and Spain) started
slicing parts of it even during the 19th century, as part of their
imperialist global expansion. Their objective was controlling resources,
raw materials, markets, and cheap labor.

Britain established itself in the
Arabian (Persian) Gulf area well before World War I. By that time, oil
was known in America, then it was discovered in Kuwait and the Gulf area
at the beginning of the 20th century. British and American oil companies
obtained generous oil concessions from the rulers in the area. Ever
since, the relationship between royal families and oil companies has
become of mutual benefit. British and American oil companies got cheap
oil in exchange for the British and American recognition and protection
of these royal families.

But how did these families become
royal anyway? They allied themselves with Britain against the Ottoman
Empire in World War I. The British helped them defeat their pro-Ottoman
rivals and thus becoming rulers over a small population. If you take the
three states that provide military bases to the US and the UK, Kuawait,
Bahrain, and Qatar, the citizens are so small in number that these
states rarely disclose the number of citizens vis-a-vis immigrants.
Immigrants in all Gulf states do not get permanent residence status or
citizenship. The objective is limiting spending to a small number of
people and for the royal families to maintain a firm grip on the huge
oil reserves.

In brief, these royal families and
the surrounding wealthy minority of citizens have a vested interest in
allying themselves with the outside powers, the UK and the US in this
case. So, if these outside powers become involved in conflict with any
other Arab state, they would automatically side with their foreign
imperialist protectors. This was the case with Nasser's Egypt during the
1950s and the 1960s, as well as the case with Saddam's Iraq now.

The vast majority of Arabs have
never relinquished the dream of unifying the Arab homeland in one
nation, like Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, or the US. However, these
unionists have been severely embattled by sovereigntists whose vested
interest is served by keeping Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait (for example)
as sovereign states. There were so many attempts for unification in the
second half of the 20th century. But these were resisted by
sovereigntists in every case.

Consequently, these ruling
families will not ask the US troops to leave. Actually, they beg the US
to stay. In the case of Qatar, the ruler encouraged the US to transfer
its main base from Saudi Arabia to Qatar by spending more than a billion
dollars on Al-Udaid air base. When the US moved its command there, the
royal family of Qatar should have celebrated because they perceive this
as a guarantee of stability for their rule against their enemies,
external or domestic.

However, the vast majority of
Arabs are against the war on Iraq. They are angry against their
inefficient and "client" rulers. People are so shocked of what
is happening that they are doing nothing. But this may not last long
before they turn against these rulers, particularly when they see the
consequences of the war.

Now, with regard to what the US
military presence doing there, I have answered this question several
times before. The US inherited the European imperialist legacy after
World War II. During the Cold War (1946-1990), the US and the Soviet
Union competed for military presence around the world. After the
collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has become the only
empire in the world.

The power elite alliance which
rules the US includes three main interests, the military industrial
complex, oil interests, and Israeli interests. All the three have a
vested interest in invading the Middle East now. This invasion of Iraq
will complete the US military occupation of the entire Arabian Gulf
area, which includes about 70 percent of the proven world oil reserves,
thus, achieving the interests of the oil industry. The war and its
consequences, particularly maintaining a permanent military presence in
the Gulf area achieve the interests of the military industry and its
beneficiaries. Last but not least, supporters of Israel in the US
government have been arguing and pushing for such invasion and conflict
with Arabs and Muslims for decades. This will guarantee that the
Arab-Israeli conflict will be over in favor of Israel, as the US, the
only superpower in the world, will fight Israel's war against Arabs and
Muslims. The invasion of Iraq will be good news and relief in Israel,
which has failed to subjugate the Palestinian people despite the huge
arsenal it has been provided, for free, from the US. The world attention
will be distracted from the Israeli atrocities in the occupied
Palestinian territories to the horrors of war in Iraq. Even if the war
doesn't happen, Zionist Israelis have already benefited from the shift
of focus away from their war crimes.

We live in very dangerous times,
where lives of millions of people are irrelevant, as long as the
privileged few live their own luxurious lifestyle and control resources
and people. The victims are the masses of people who will be dragged to
the conflict to kill each other in war, then to be deprived of the
social services that will be lost as a result of the war.

-----------------------------------

* In interactive editorials, the
editor of Al-Jazeerah answers questions and or responds to comments of
readers, which are more general than readers' responses to specific
articles or issues. It is an effective method of interaction in
electronic journalism, particularly because it addresses readers'
concerns.

** Dr. Hassan A. El-Najjar is the
editor of Al-Jazeerah. Husna
Naim is a Chemist from London, UK.